The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as well as that there was no theft of the victim C’s wallets, and there was no difference between the victim and the victim and the fact that the victim entered the toilet in the Pakistan, and that he was defoliating the proto in the long distance garbage box from the victim C with the fact that he was a larceny by the victim C. However, the lower court erred by disregarding the possibility of the victim’s mistake and solely on the basis of the victim’s statement.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles and the following circumstances acknowledged by C's legal statement again testified in the trial as the victim of this case, namely, ① the victim was induced by the defendant who sent the same-sex signals, such as opening and closing the door clocks in the so-called Saun Park toilet, and entered the part of the defendant, and then the victim was sufficiently informed of the time and opportunity for the victim to memory the face of the defendant, such as talking about the victim in the process of avoiding the victim, and ② the defendant was aware of the situation in which the police investigation would be done by the victim at the time of the police investigation, that "the victim was able to extract coffee from the so-called Saun Park, Saunk Sak Sak Sak Sak Sak Sak Sak Sak Sak, and she was able to take up the victim's right to walk, and that the victim was able to have the victim's outer goods.